Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220707081826.953449-1-Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com>
 <20220707081826.953449-3-Naresh.Solanki@9elements.com> <20220714141041.GB2229197-robh@kernel.org>
 <YtAkwcwXaQqZV75d@sirena.org.uk> <CAL_JsqKu_HCDoPBTcVdVV2JyD_8p3+cbrNC0u6VrK85vWZmt3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YtArbh4a40cACRMt@sirena.org.uk> <CAL_Jsq+KRyE3i3CkPKopGgFvL+h0pT3R-d3aZNgVmKyiTy3gjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YtA8KOLDIsEH+okf@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YtA8KOLDIsEH+okf@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jul 2022 10:59:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKCByvNASAxRWV3bcjFSBjXZUQf0Xvv_dCZ0z1CRCcOKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: regulator: add bindings for output-supply
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Zev Weiss <zev@bewilderbeest.net>
Cc:     Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Patrick Rudolph <patrick.rudolph@9elements.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

+Zev

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 9:54 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:07:49AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 8:43 AM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > > Consider for example a BMC (IIRC that's what their specific product is),
> > > a bench supply or some automated test equipment.  Part of the function
> > > for these systems is to provide power to other systems which would be
> > > represented as a root or wall supply in the description of the system
> > > that actually uses the supply if it were described using DT.
>
> > Didn't someone else have a similar use recently? Controlling some
> > supply external to the system. I can't seem to find it now.
>
> IIRC that was an earlier iteration of the same thing - it's been round
> the houses a bit.  extcon seemed like it might be a home since these are
> external connections from the system but in the end people didn't think
> it looked like a good fit.

Found it:

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220504065252.6955-2-zev@bewilderbeest.net/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220505232557.10936-1-zev@bewilderbeest.net/

v2 was the using extcon version. v1 looks pretty similar to this one
though anything that's just a compatible plus supplies would.

But AFAICT these 2 submissions are completely independent.

> > In any case, it's not for you to describe, but Naresh, and in the
> > binding and commit messages. But first we need to overcome proper
> > usage of get_maintainers.pl. In response, to my first reply on v4, I
> > have a second v4 sent privately today (and still only the vendor
> > prefix). Sigh. AFAICT, for v1-v3, the only thing that made it to the
> > list was the cover letters. Bottom line is this series has multiple
> > problems and shouldn't have been applied yet.
>
> I can drop it but I do think it's reasonable to be adding a vendor
> binding for this, we don't seem to have enough people engaged to scope
> out a generic binding confidently and TBH I've got a feeling we might
> want multiple application specific generic bindings when we do have one.

I don't mind the vendor prefix. I mind the vendor prefix without any
description of the vendor's h/w.

Rob